Brown has to get back in touch with Labour values

The Olympic torch was a great opportunity for him to stand up against a quasi-imperial power. It was completely muffed

It is a dreadful phrase. "Progressive governance" is blah-blah language. The organisation which ran the weekend's summit for Gordon Brown, Bill Clinton and others, seems handmade to repel ordinary people. It was held at a swish country hotel - the Grove - near Watford, surrounded by walls of steel. Its communique was more blah-blah: "Globalisation ... coordinated international response ... multilateral ... relevant players."

There, surrounded by prime ministers, presidents, international fixers and Eurocrats, everyone agrees that Brown shone. Yes, our dour prime minister was dazzling, apparently; passionate, charming, relaxed and eloquent. He loved it, I'm told, and wishes he could attend such events every weekend. All that deep policy, all that mildly do-gooding global power ambling about with fizzy water and fat folders of briefing notes.

What fun - if you like that kind of thing. And what a contrast, too, to the car crash of a parliamentary Labour party meeting earlier in the week, where Brown bombed. Everyone there I've talked to agrees it was a bad-tempered meeting in which the prime minister was barely treated with respect by irate backbenchers, and seemed woefully under-informed about the bread-and-butter concerns of Labour MPs on tax, the closure of post offices and the credit crunch. Yet for his own future, and the government's, the PLP was the meeting that mattered, and the progressive governance summit was beside the point.

No doubt much valuable talking was done among national leaders from Europe, Africa and America. It was not a bad thing that they got together to talk, albeit in vague terms, about climate and global poverty and trade. Seeds will have been sown.

It wouldn't matter so much if it was not such a clear symbol of what is going wrong. Out there are basic issues for core Labour voters, such as the effect of the abolition of the 10p income tax band on single poor workers. There are answers to this, about the budget changes generally, which Treasury people insist benefit the poorest 20% most. But that's not the point: Brown should have had the arguments at his fingertips and made them passionately, and he didn't. Old stagers in the PLP suggest it was astonishing he was not better briefed. Clearly, too many people in No 10 were thinking instead about the communiques and placements for the Grove hotel.

The danger of incumbency-thinking can infect anything. Take the Tibet protests yesterday. From what we might call the Grove perspective, it may have made perfect sense to accept the Chinese Olympic torch at Downing Street, and to keep any representations to Beijing private and moderate. China is an increasingly powerful player in the world economy, on which British prosperity partly depends. The regime is quick to take offence. But from a Labour and a human rights perspective, that pales into insignificance compared to the chance to protest against gross abuses by a quasi-imperial power. Here was a chance to stand up for Labour values at a decisive moment, and it was completely muffed.

When it comes to human rights, as with the price of beer, the lower bands of the tax system, the closure of post offices and government concern about the availability of affordable borrowing, the charge "you've lost touch" seems to stick. Two ministers now, in different circumstances, have warned that the party is losing its instinct for its own voters. Backbenchers feel free to voice the criticisms in public that they have so far only been whispering in private. This has to be the fault of the prime minister. Only he can change the story.

One minister yesterday analysed the challenge for Brown like this: at the progressive governance conference, he was surrounded by people he feels comfortable with, and sparkled. At the PLP it was the reverse. So how can the Gordon seen at his best in private be translated back into the rough-house of real politics? It certainly cannot be done with make-overs, nor can the public be fooled into thinking he's a "man of the people" in the glib sense. He's not. But that doesn't mean he can't improve the situation.

The first thing is that he has to sort out the bickering and counter-briefing coming out of No 10 from old Brownites and new managers. The spin doctors are turning on one another and this has become demoralising and destabilising.

Next, he needs to make a reality of his pledge to restore cabinet government - and ensure that cabinet ministers are seen and heard, making the case for Labour. TV producers complain about the reluctance of all but a few ministers ever to set foot in the studios these days. But if key ministers are not out there supporting Brown - as Blunkett, Reid and Clarke did for Blair - it's hardly surprising that the voters have doubts.

Finally, Brown has to look around him and ask himself what kind of company he should be keeping. The international conference circuit is only relevant if you are secure at home. And the Brown who as chancellor listened sympathetically to the moans and gossip of Labour MPs has stopped hearing them - that at least is what they feel. It's a big mistake. The Clintons and Mbekis might be more glamorous company, but they have not the first idea about what is angering voters in Rotherham, Essex or South Wales.

When was Brown popular? When he got stuck into the domestic crises of the late summer, and when as chancellor he pushed money into the NHS, forged the minimum wage and stuck with tough decisions. His political power has always come from a reputation for concentrating on what matters to voters and delivering common sense answers.

That is what is being squandered just now. The progressive governance event and communique was a classic case of how politics should not be conducted at a time when millions of once-optimistic Labour voters are struggling to pay their bills, or giving up. Yes, there must be international cooperation on the issues of the age, and there must be long-term thinking by leaders with similar values. But it should be done quietly and without hoo-hah.

What's most worrying is that Brown enjoyed the Grove summit so much, and hated the parliamentary party grilling so much. It should be the other way around. He needs to get back to street-level concerns. Labour MPs who protested to the prime minister were, of course, responding to dire opinion polls threatening their own futures. But that's how the system works. "Progressive governance" is the frothy indulgence on the top.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/07/labour.gordonbrown